[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[Upeksacitta at aol.com]

Richard Hayes wrote:
 
"On Friday 25 August 2006 07:42, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> He  defines those terms in this way:
>
> 1- atheist is who know that  there is not a God
> 2- agnostic is who suspend any judgement until  further evidence

These categories seem not to include the Buddha's  position, which, as far as 
I 
can tell, was that the question of God's  existence is not important. 

The definitions given by Russell could also  leave out the position of some 
kinds of philosopher who say that because the  question is poorly formulated, 
it is unclear what would count as evidence  for one side or the other. I 
suppose one could call such a person an  agnostic, but it seems a stronger 
position than de facto agnosticism.  

For example, one might suspend judgment on the question of whether  George W. 
Bush and Richard Cheney planned the attacks on the World Trade  Center. One 
might, for example, claim that not all the evidence is in and  that it would 
therefore be premature to reach a verdict. So one might be a  de facto 
agnostic on that question, holding the view that one lacks the  evidence to 
settle a matter that is in principle decidable. But the position  of many 
philosophers (including, I think, some Buddhists) is that no amount  of 
evidence or reasoning can possibly settle the question of whether or not  God 
(as described in a particular way) exists; the question, in their view,  is 
in 
principle undecidable."
 
I must agree that Russell's definition is inadequate to defining the  
Buddha's agnosticism. The fact that it's unclear what evidence could count for  one 
side or the other makes the Buddha's position closer to hard agnosticism, to  
what you call de facto agnosticism and I would call soft agnosticism. However,  
this doesn't capture the whole of the Buddha's position here , because there 
is  a definite pragmatic argument against belief in God, due to such beliefs 
being  eternalistic and being primarily sources of attachment. This means that 
although  "atheism" is completely inadequate to describe the Buddha's 
position, one has to  provide a refined explanation of his agnosticism to make this 
term useful too.  Perhaps this involves stipulating a special sense of 
agnosticism, but I would  still argue that this stipulation involves a shorter move 
from the widespread  sense of the term than the one that would be required to 
call the Buddha  "atheist".  
 
I think it is an important philosophical mistake to identify agnosticism  
with inaction (this was Hume's mistake when he wrote about scepticism).  The 
recognition of not knowing absolutely does not prevent us making a  pragmatic 
decision to act on the basis of relatively justified belief.
 
I must also disagree with Vicen.bcn when he (or she?) gives the Buddha  
talking to God in the Pali Canon as a reason for the Buddha not being agnostic.  If 
such passages are interpreted symbolically, no claim that God exists is  
necessarily implied by them.
 
Upeksacitta

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060827/ec6001b1/attachment.html